The article "Radical in the White House" by Thomas L. Friedman appeared in the New York Times on January 21st, 2009. The author wrote this article to share his thoughts on our new president. This article is directed towards anyone who is a little skeptical about Obama and his plan to save this country, and reaffirming those who believe in him. All of this is done in a pratical way.
The author knows that this country is in trouble and is looking towards Obama in an almost skeptical way. Friedman wants Obama to be able to live up to his speeches, and is hoping that Obama can really pull this country together in a time of need. Since Obama has stated to do so many things to this country in his various speeches, Friedman is waiting to see how Obama will execute this and what decisions he will make along the way.
Friday, January 30, 2009
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Assignment #1 K. Tough
Assignment #1
K. Tough
The author of “Radical in the White House,” Thomas Friedman, is a Pulitzer Prize winner in the field of commentary; so this may be interpreted that he is an excellent philosopher with a background it foreign-affairs and economics. Information from the New York Times, our professor claims is often (not exclusively), presented from a liberal point of view. Add to the fact that not only did this article appear in the NY Times, but is on the opinion page, and the conclusion can only be, sticking to the authors sports metaphor, another persons attempt at arm chair coaching. The media has taken the attitude that we, the American people, are incapable of discerning the intent or meaning behind the President’s inaugural speech; and therefore, need them to explain to, or clarify for, us what the president actually said. As a typical voter and citizen of this country I do not feel a need for this type of clarification; especially since the article appears to be directed at Republican voters while mainly white collar Democrat voters read the New York Times.
Mr. Friedman is attempting to inspire and enlighten John Q. Public with his vision of President Obama taking on a radical momentum in the White House. He describes the president as a ‘black man,’ yet describes a street vendor as an ‘African-American,’ is this to make a point about how extremely radical we the voters were to elect a ‘black man’ into office? I am not proud of our country for electing a ‘black man,’ yet I am proud of our country for seeing past stereotypes of age, cabinet appointees, years in politics, skin color, religion, etc. during our democratic process. We have had radical moments in the White House prior to this; for goodness sake look at President Carter! Can anyone remember the peanut farmer with the huge smile and beer drinking brother? Now, that was radical! The media in general, as did Friedman, continue to compare President Obama’s inherited US economy to that of Roosevelt in the Great Depression. These are just exciting political times for those of us who are looking at the present. As asked by our professor in this course; do we not require a complete understanding of our history to understand where we are politically at the present? Looking to other sources and other points in history and this is not as large a crisis in our country as it appears now. Having read the book “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand in High School as Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal did and we diverge from Friedman’s interpretation of our country’s state and remember the days of President Reagan. In Moore’s article in the Wall Street Journal, indicated by our professor to often (not exclusively) present from a conservative point of view, we see that the economic state of our country inherited by President Obama is not as bad as that inherited by President Reagan in 1981. So, while Friedman has my support and enthusiasm that we the people have been summoned and must be ready to serve as requested by our President; I must also quote Rand in stating that: “Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.” Let us not forget our history and remember that President Obama is not a virgin to politics; he too has been a politician sitting on his Senatorial seat responding to the crises of our country for the past decade.
K. Tough
The author of “Radical in the White House,” Thomas Friedman, is a Pulitzer Prize winner in the field of commentary; so this may be interpreted that he is an excellent philosopher with a background it foreign-affairs and economics. Information from the New York Times, our professor claims is often (not exclusively), presented from a liberal point of view. Add to the fact that not only did this article appear in the NY Times, but is on the opinion page, and the conclusion can only be, sticking to the authors sports metaphor, another persons attempt at arm chair coaching. The media has taken the attitude that we, the American people, are incapable of discerning the intent or meaning behind the President’s inaugural speech; and therefore, need them to explain to, or clarify for, us what the president actually said. As a typical voter and citizen of this country I do not feel a need for this type of clarification; especially since the article appears to be directed at Republican voters while mainly white collar Democrat voters read the New York Times.
Mr. Friedman is attempting to inspire and enlighten John Q. Public with his vision of President Obama taking on a radical momentum in the White House. He describes the president as a ‘black man,’ yet describes a street vendor as an ‘African-American,’ is this to make a point about how extremely radical we the voters were to elect a ‘black man’ into office? I am not proud of our country for electing a ‘black man,’ yet I am proud of our country for seeing past stereotypes of age, cabinet appointees, years in politics, skin color, religion, etc. during our democratic process. We have had radical moments in the White House prior to this; for goodness sake look at President Carter! Can anyone remember the peanut farmer with the huge smile and beer drinking brother? Now, that was radical! The media in general, as did Friedman, continue to compare President Obama’s inherited US economy to that of Roosevelt in the Great Depression. These are just exciting political times for those of us who are looking at the present. As asked by our professor in this course; do we not require a complete understanding of our history to understand where we are politically at the present? Looking to other sources and other points in history and this is not as large a crisis in our country as it appears now. Having read the book “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand in High School as Stephen Moore of the Wall Street Journal did and we diverge from Friedman’s interpretation of our country’s state and remember the days of President Reagan. In Moore’s article in the Wall Street Journal, indicated by our professor to often (not exclusively) present from a conservative point of view, we see that the economic state of our country inherited by President Obama is not as bad as that inherited by President Reagan in 1981. So, while Friedman has my support and enthusiasm that we the people have been summoned and must be ready to serve as requested by our President; I must also quote Rand in stating that: “Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.” Let us not forget our history and remember that President Obama is not a virgin to politics; he too has been a politician sitting on his Senatorial seat responding to the crises of our country for the past decade.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Assignment 1 - Scott Alt
In an article in the New York Times, columnist Thomas L. Friedman believes that President Obama will indeed enact change in this country's policies, but knows that it's not necessarily going to happen right off the bat. The columnist wrote it to share his thoughts on the election, and what the new President means to the country. His argument is that Obama really will live up to the change he promised, and that we as a nation should welcome him.
If the fact that he was writing for the New York Times didn't give it away already, Friedman is a clear Democrat. But he's trying to reach out to the other side, who seems so hell-bent on staying true to the failed politics and policies that plunged the nation into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. I believe that since Obama is making such an effort to reach out to people who probably still think he's some kind of socialist Kenyan terrorist, Republicans should try and find some middle ground. People are never going to agree on everything, but if Obama goes down, so does the entire country, and in comes the second Great Depression.
If the fact that he was writing for the New York Times didn't give it away already, Friedman is a clear Democrat. But he's trying to reach out to the other side, who seems so hell-bent on staying true to the failed politics and policies that plunged the nation into the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. I believe that since Obama is making such an effort to reach out to people who probably still think he's some kind of socialist Kenyan terrorist, Republicans should try and find some middle ground. People are never going to agree on everything, but if Obama goes down, so does the entire country, and in comes the second Great Depression.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Assignment#1 J Plyler
This happened on Wednesday, The day after the inauguration. It appear in the New York Times. THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, thinks that Obama might live up to change he speaks about, but seems worried that getting one thing done at a time might not happen. I believe that he is speaking to the nation. The argument is that we need to worry about our country and not worry about what is going on overseas, lets get our country in shape first.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Assignment #1 Mary Ellen Mockridge
In his N.Y. Times article, "Radical In The White House", Thomas L. Friedman hails the inauguration of our 44th president and calls on America to re-invigorate itself. I agree with Friedman that we as a country need a shot in the arm. However, I strongly disagree with his choice of medicine in that shot.
Freidman is clearly addressing his far left audience, encouraging them to support socialism in the United States. Our country was built on the ideal of individualism, not government entitlements. While well meaning, Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society only hurt us in the long run. One does not achieve greatness with one's hand out. It is achieved by getting those hands dirty and making your own success.
I will not take the time to debate all of Friedman's suggestions in this forum- let's just say that I voted for the other guy!
Having said that, let me make it clear that I wish President Obama well. He is now my president and I accept and respect that.
What would truly be radical would be to leave race, religion, and partisanship out of governing this great land. Only then can we take a bow for a mission accomplished!
Freidman is clearly addressing his far left audience, encouraging them to support socialism in the United States. Our country was built on the ideal of individualism, not government entitlements. While well meaning, Roosevelt's New Deal and Johnson's Great Society only hurt us in the long run. One does not achieve greatness with one's hand out. It is achieved by getting those hands dirty and making your own success.
I will not take the time to debate all of Friedman's suggestions in this forum- let's just say that I voted for the other guy!
Having said that, let me make it clear that I wish President Obama well. He is now my president and I accept and respect that.
What would truly be radical would be to leave race, religion, and partisanship out of governing this great land. Only then can we take a bow for a mission accomplished!
Friday, January 23, 2009
Assignment#1 K McWhirter
The item appeared in the New York Times on Wednesday, the day after the inauguration; the article is directed at the nation as a whole.
Apparently, the writer is someone who is an Obama supporter onmany different levels. The writer thinks it's good that we have ablack president; however the writer also is very much aware and stressesthe "issues at hand", and how important it is to solve them - thisis the problem as the writer summarizes. It is now time to accept change, and Obama has a chance to be monumental with this opportunity.
Apparently, the writer is someone who is an Obama supporter onmany different levels. The writer thinks it's good that we have ablack president; however the writer also is very much aware and stressesthe "issues at hand", and how important it is to solve them - thisis the problem as the writer summarizes. It is now time to accept change, and Obama has a chance to be monumental with this opportunity.
Assignment 1
The article seems to be a compilation of various quotes, statements and previous news headlines from the 2008 presidential election along with the writer's personal experience at the inauguration of President Obama. The article is written by Thomas L Friedman a well known columnist of the the New York Times. The article appeared in the New york times on January 20 2009. The article was written to show how far America has come, from slavery, to the civil war, the great depression, the civil rights movement and now a black president. The article was written to encourage Americans, to stand up and work with their government to bring stability back to the country and to show that the government can choose to bring about change for it's people or decide to do nothing and allow the country to perish. The Author was also trying to make readers see that despite President Obama being called a radical by his opponent and other critics, that we do need a so call "Radical" in office "because this is a radical moment" for our country.
The article was directed to all people and all Americans; young, old, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Indians. The article was not limited to any specific generation. The basic argument of the article is that America have come a long way, but we should not stop here just because we have a black president. The argument is that the president will not fix the economy, the health care system, the banking systems, etc by himself; we as a nation need to come together to help rebuild our country's failing healthcare system, economy and banking system. "We need to work on our country and our planet in wholly new ways." the author is encouraging all Americans to take an active part in bringing change to our country and help save the planet.
The article was directed to all people and all Americans; young, old, blacks, whites, Hispanics, Indians. The article was not limited to any specific generation. The basic argument of the article is that America have come a long way, but we should not stop here just because we have a black president. The argument is that the president will not fix the economy, the health care system, the banking systems, etc by himself; we as a nation need to come together to help rebuild our country's failing healthcare system, economy and banking system. "We need to work on our country and our planet in wholly new ways." the author is encouraging all Americans to take an active part in bringing change to our country and help save the planet.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)